The Significance Of 'Tathagatagarbha' --
A Positive Expression Of 'Sunyata'

Heng-Ching Shih

The well-known motto
of Ch'an Buddhism is that "perceiving the true self, one becomes a Buddha." The
"true self" signifies the Buddha nature inherent in all sentient beings. The
discovering of the "true self" has become the single most important pursuit of
the Buddhist, especially in Sino-Japanese Buddhism. On the contrary, early Buddhism
teaches that ultimately no substantial self (i.e., 'anatman') can be found, since the self
is nothing but the union of the five aggregates. Modern Buddhologists as well as the
Buddhists have been intrigued by the inconsistency that one single tradition teaches both
that there is no self on the one hand, and that the goal of religious life is to discover
the true self, on the other hand.

The big questions
concerning these two contradictory doctrines include:

- How did they develop during the course of Buddhist
history?
- How can they be reconciled?
- Are these two ideas actually as contradicting as they appear to be?
- Is the concept of the Buddha nature an outcome of the influence of other Indian
religious thought upon Buddhism?

It is out of the scope of this short paper to answer all
these questions. Therefore, this paper will deal with the antecedent and synonymous
concept of the Buddha nature, that is, 'tathagata- garbha' ('ju lai tsang'). Specifically,
this paper will examine the meaning and significance of the 'tathagatagarbha' (Buddha
nature) based on three 'tathagatagarbha' texts and argue that the 'tathagatagarbha'/Buddha
nature does not represent a substantial self ('atman'); rather, it is a positive language
and expression of 'sunyata' (emptiness) and represents the potentiality to realize
Buddhahood through Buddhist practices. In other words, the intention of the teaching of
'tathagatagarbha'/Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical.

The term "'tathagatagarbha'" is generally taken
as to mean that the "garbha" of a 'Tathagata' exists in all sentient beings
without exception, and though temporarily contaminated by adventitious defilement
('agantukaklesa'), it is the cause which eventually leads sentient beings to
enlightenment. The notion of the 'tathagatagarbha' can be traced to a luminousˇA
inherently pure mind (pabhassar citta) found in the 'Anguttara-nikaya' (1:5):

Oh! 'Bhiksus'. The mind is pure! It is defiled by the
adventitious defilement. Oh! 'Bhiksus'. The mind is pure! it obtains liberation through
the adventitious defilement.

When the original pure mind came to be regarded as
something capable of growing into Buddhahood, there was the 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine.
Although the concept of an intrinsically pure mind exists in the Nikaya Buddhism, many
Buddhologists, such as Wayman (1), Paul (2), Yin-shun (3) think that the 'tathagatagarbha'
thought was originated from the 'Mahasamgika', but was rejected by the 'Theravada'. This
theory is also held by Mizuno who points out that the pure mind ('pabhassarcitta')
articulated in the Nikaya Buddhism is not totally identical with the original pure mind
('prakrtivisuddhi-citta') articulated in the 'Tathagatagarbha' doctrine, for Mizuno
asserts that the former is static whereas the latter is dynamic in that it is capable of
eradicating defilement.(4) At any rate, the relationship between pure mind and the
adventitious defilement appears to have been wholly adopted by the 'Mahasamghika' and
later by the 'Mahayana'.

According to I-tsing's Nan-hai-chi-kuei Nei-fa-chuan (The
record of the Buddhist kingdoms in the Southern Archipelago), "the so-called
'Mahayana' (in India) is no more than the two: one 'Madhyamika', the other
'Yogacara'."(5) Although it is commonly held that the 'Madhyamika' and 'Yogacara'
were the two major philosophical schools in Indian 'Mahayana' and although it might be
true that 'tathagatagarbha' thought never formed an academic school in India, this does
not mean that the 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine never played a significant role in the
development of Indian Buddhist thought.(6) This is attested by the fact that there are
many 'tathagatagarbha' scriptures composed in India approximately from the third to the
sixth century, such as the 'Tathagatagarbha-sutra', 'Maha-parinirvana-sutra',
'Anuatyapurn-atvanirdesa-sutra', 'Srimaladevisimhanada-sutra', 'Lankavatara-sutra',
Rotnagotravibhaga, Buddha-nature Treatise, etc.

Since the beginning of this century, many 'Buddhologists'
have become interested in the 'Tathagararbha' doctrine and have shed new light on
tathagatagarbha thought. However, their studies, especially on the Ratnagotravibhaga, lead
to two different interpretations of the 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine, i.e., 'tathagatagarbha
as a monistic doctrine, and 'tathagatagarbha' as the embodiment of the principle of
dependent co-arising ('pratityasamutpada') or 'sunyata', following the traditional
'Mahayana' Buddhist lines.

Obermiller, who maintains the 'Tathagatagarbha' as
monistic, in the introduction to his translation of the Ratnagotravibhaga, says that in
this text, "we see that Aryasanga has come to a fully monistic and pantheistic
conception" and that "The central point of this most developed theory is the
teaching that the fundamental element of Buddhahood, the essence of the Buddha in a living
being represents an eternal, immutable ('asamskrta') element, which is identical with the
monistic Absolute and is unique and undifferentiated in everything that lives."(7)

Takasaki, an eminent scholar of the 'tathagatagarbha'
doctrine, asserts that the 'tathagatagarbha' thought holds some monistic element. He says:
- "When Buddhism developed itself into 'Mahayana' Buddhism, it could not but take the
appearance of Monism as a result of Absolutization of the Buddha and approach the
Upanishadic thinking in its philosophy ... for explaining the possibility of anyone's
acquiring the Buddhahood, the Monistic philosophy was used as the background. In this last
point lies the significance of the 'tathagatagarbha' theory of this text. This theory is
in one sense an inevitable result of the development of Mahayanistic monism in its
religious expression."(8)

Although Takasaki notes that there is a difference between
the nature of monism in the Ratnagotravibhaga and in the Upanishads, for the Absolute
taught in the Ratnagotravibhaga is the manifestion of 'sunyata' which is of a quite
different character from the substantial Absolute of the Upanishads, still he believes
"there was an influence from the Upanishadic thought for the 'astivada' of the Ratna
to establish its monistic doctrine."(9)

The reason for those scholars' holding the
'tathagatagarbha' doctrine as monistic is that they base their interpretation on passages
in various 'tathagatagarbha' literature which assert the equivalence of the
'tathagatagarbha' to terms with all-pervading character, such as 'tathata', 'dharmakaya',
'dharmadhatu', etc., which describe the 'tathagatagarbha' as being eternal (nitya) and
immutable ('atman'), which assert the fundamental purity of the 'tathagatagarbha'
(equating the 'tathagatagarbha' as 'prakrtiparisuddhi-citta', the original pure mind), and
which assert that the 'tathagatagarbha' functions like a first cause from which the
phenomenal reality emanates.

However, if we examine more carefully the
'tathagatagarbha' doctrine, we will find that it can be interpreted as an expression of
the concept of 'pratityasamutpada' and 'sunyata'. Yamaguchi (10) and Ogawa(11) follow this
traditional line.

Interestingly, modern Buddhologists are not alone in their
puzzle about the question of whether the 'tathagatagarbha' represents a kind of
Upanishadic 'atman'. Bodhisattva 'Mahamati' in the 'Lankavatarasutra' raised a question
concerning this issue. He said to the Buddha:

- Now the Blessed one makes mention of the
'tathagatagarbha' in the sutras, and it is described by you as by nature bright and pure,
as primarily unspotted, endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence, hidden in the
body of every being like a gem of great value ... it is described by the Blessed One to be
eternal, permanent, auspicious and unchangeable. Is not this 'tathagatagarbha' taught by
the Blessed One the same as the ego-substance taught by the philosophers (tirthikas)?
(12).

In this passage, the Buddha clearly identified the
'tathagatagarbha' with emptiness, markless, 'tathata', etc., meaning that the
'tathagatagarbha' is without any substantial entity. Then the question arises: -- if the
'tathagatagarbha' is empty by nature , why the Buddhas teach a 'tathagatagarbha'
possessing all positive attributes, such as eternal (nitya), self ('atman'), bliss (sukha)
and pure (subha)? The Buddha goes on to answer this question:

- The reason why the 'Tathagatas' who are Arhats and fully
enlightened Ones teach the doctrine pointing to the tathagatagarbha which is a state of
non-discrimination and imageless, is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they
listen to teaching of egolessness. It is like a potter who manufactures various vessels
out of a mass of clay of one sort by his own manual skill and labour ... that the
'Tathagatas' preach the egolessness of things which removes all the traces of
discrimination by various skillful means issuing from their trancend-ental wisdom, that
is, sometimes by the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' , sometimes by that of egolessness
... Thus, 'Mahamati', the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' is disclosed in order to
awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego. Accordingly,
'Mahamati', the 'Tathagatas' disclose the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' which is thus
not to be known as identical with the philosopher's notion of an egosubstance. Therefore ,
'Mahamati', in order to abandon the misconception cherished by the philosophers, you must
depend on the 'anatman-tathagatagarbha'.(13)

It is pointed out in this passage that the
'tathagatagarbha' is empty in its nature yet real: it is 'Nirvana' itself, unborn, without
predicates. It is where no false discrimination (nirvikalpa) takes place. There is nothing
here for the Buddhas or Bodhisattvas to take hold of as an 'atman'. They have gone beyond
the sphere of false discrimination and word. It is due to their wisdom and skillful means
('upaya') that they set up all kinds of names and phrases in order to save sentient beings
from mistaken view of reality. In other words, it is exactly to help sentient beings case
away their fear of 'anatman' that the 'tathagatagarbha' with positive attributes (i.e.,
'asunya-tathagatagarbha') is taught, and at the same time it is to get rid of the clinging
of 'atman' that the 'anatman-tathagatagarbha' is taught. Thus it is clear that the
'tathagatagarbha' is not an Upanishadic 'atman'. Now let's turn to examine how Yamaguchi
and Ogawa who hold this traditional line interpret this doctrine.

Yamaguchi points out that the statement in the
Ratnagotravibhaga, "O Noble youth, such is the essential nature of the dharma
('dharmanam dharmata'), whether the 'Tathagatas' appear in the world, or whether they do
not, these living beings are always possessed of the matrix of the 'Tathagata'" (15)
is parallel to the statement found in the Sammyutta-nikaya "Whether the 'Tathagatas'
were to appear in the world, the theory of 'pratitysamutpada' remains."(16)

Here we see the 'tathagatagarbha' was considered as a
valid principle as 'pratitysamutpada'. Thus Yamaguchi holds that the most important point
in expounding the 'tathagatagarbha' in the Ratnagotravibharga is that "the
'pratitysamutpada' is the 'tathagatagarbha'." (engi sunawachi nyoraizo)(17).

Ogawa, following the same position, interprets the
'tathagatagarbha' according to the commentary of the 'Ratnagotravibhaga' by the Tibetan
master, Dhar-ma rin-chen. He argues that the 'tathatagatagarbha' is essentially the same
as 'sunyata', and also it has the 'sunyata' nature which allows the mind to understand
'sunyata'. The crucial point of this interpretation centers on the passage "all
sentient beings are possessed of the 'tathagatagarbha'" in the Ratnagotravibhaga. It
expounds three 'svabhavas' of the 'tathagatagarbha' to justify the above passage.
According to Dhar-ma rin-chen, the three 'svabhavas' are ways of explaining the
'tathagatagarbha' form three perspectives: - from the perspective of the result level of
the 'Tathagata', from the perspective of the nature of the 'Tathagata' and from the
perspective of the cause of the 'Tathagata.'(18)

1/- 'Dharmakaya-svabhava': - from the perspective of the
result level of the 'Tathagata'. The 'Dharmakaya-svabhava' means that the 'Dharmakaya' of
the 'Tathagata' penetrates all sentient beings. According to Takasaki, this first
'svabhava' is derived from the ' Tathagatotpattisambhavambhava-parivarta' of the
'Avatamsaka-sutra' as cited in the Ratnagotravibhaga: -- "There is no one among the
groups of sentient beings in whose body the wisdom of the 'Tathagata' does not penetrate
at all."(19) It seems that when "the 'dharmakaya' of the 'Tathagata'
pervades" is taken to mean that there is no part of the universe where the
substantial entity is not present, it could fall into a monistic interpretation. However,
according to Dhar-ma rin-chen, the 'Dharmakaya' is explained as having two aspects:

1) 'Dharma-dhatu', the perfectly pure realm of ultimate
truth itself, in which "dharma" means "teaching" and
"'dhatu'" means "cause". Therefore, the 'Dharmadhatu' refers to the
supreme truth which is the cause of the teaching, and
2) arya-dharma which means the teaching in its form as conventional truth. This
conventional teaching is the nature outflow ('nisyanda') of wisdom.

Thus we see whereas the former aspect of the 'Dharmadhatu'
refers to the truth realized by the Buddha, the static aspect of the 'Tathagata's'
enlightenment, the later refers to the dynamic aspect of the 'Tathagata's' enlightenment,
i.e., teaching the Dharma. This is to say that the Buddhadharma, or the teaching,
spontaniously flows out of the 'Tathagata's' compassion for the benefit of sentient
beings. Therefore, when the Ratnagotravibhaga states that "all beings possess the
'tathagatagarbha'" (because the 'Dharmakaya' of the 'Tathagata' penetrates all
sentient beings), it simply means that sentient beings are able to hear the pure dharmas
and are everywhere and constantly permeated by them, as the nesessary outflow of the
'Dharmadhatu'.(20) In other words, the universality of the 'Tathatagatagarbha' expressed
here refers to the potential capacity within living beings to be effected by the teaching
of the Buddha and hence does not have a notion of a substantial entity.

2/- 'Tathata-svabhava': - from the perspective of the
nature of the 'Tathagata'. This 'tathata-svabhava' means that the 'tathata' of the
'Tathagata' is not different from the 'tathata' of the sentient beings. The underlying
principle of this identity of the 'tathata' of the 'Tathagata' and that of sentient being
is 'sunyata'. Since the ultimate nature of both the 'Tathagata' and sentient beings are
'sunyata', they are seen to be undifferentiated. The only difference is that when the
'tathata' is associated with defilement, it is called the "'tathagatagarbha'" or
'samala tathata' (of sentient beings), and when the defilement is removed, it becomes
'nirmala tathata' (of the 'Tathagata'). Yet they are essentially identical. Therefore, one
says that all sentient beings possess the 'tathagatgarbha' when referring to the existence
of the 'sunyata' nature of living being's mind which is essentially free of defilement.
Again no notion of immutable substance should be asserted.

3/- 'Gotra-svabhava': - from the perspective of the cause
of the 'Tathagata'. This 'gotra-svabhava' means that the gotra (seed nature) of the
'Tathagata' exists in all sentient beings. The gotra in this context is explained
accroding to the two-fold structure: - 1) the 'prakrtistha-gotra' (innate gotra), and 2)
the 'samudanilagora' (acquired gotra). According to Dhar-ma rin-chen: Based on the innate
gotra, the first body, which is 'Dharmakaya', is obtained. Based on the acquired,
perfected gotra, the later two form bodies ('sambohogakaya' and 'nirmanakaya') are
obtained.(21) The 'prakrtistha' gotra which obtains the 'dharmakaya', does so on the basis
of the wisdom ('prajna') through which insight into the reality of all dharmas is
attained. According to Dharma rin-chen, the 'prakrtistha' gotra is the primary meaning of
the 'tathagatagarbha', because it is identified with 'sunyata' and as such the primary
"cause" of Buddhahood. The 'samudanita' gotra which obtains 'sambhogakaya' and
'nirmanakaya', does so on the basis of vigorous practices and the accumulation of
innumberable merits and thus is the productive "cause" of Buddhahood. The
'samudanita' is called the uttara, or ultimate, because it signifies the central theme of
general 'Mahayana' practice, that is, "wisdom ('Dharmakaya') becomes compassion
('rupakaya')(22).

In other words, within the very meaning of gotra is
experssed the movement from 'prajna' to 'karuna'. This might be called hsia-huei-hsiang, a
down-ward transformation or 'tatha-agata', i.e., returning from the realm of enlightenment
to that of this world of sentient beings˘wa process of enlightening others, after the
socalled shan-huei-hsiang, an up-ward transformation or 'tatha-gata', i.e., striving for
the realm of enlightenment from the realm of this world of sentient beings, a process of
enlightening oneself. However, this "two-way traffic" process should not be seen
as two distinctive and separated processesˇF rather, they are non-dual, interrelated and
inter-dependent.

Based on the commentary of Dhar-ma rin-chen, we can
conclude that the real purpose of the passage "the gotra of the 'Tathagata' exists in
all sentient beings" is to articulate bodhisattva practices based on wisdom. This is
supported by the structure of the Ratnagotravibhaga, which is arranged by the following
order:

The seven 'vajrapadas' are expalined in terms of cause,
condition and result. "'Dhatu'" is the "cause"; bodhi, 'guna', and
karma are the "conditions" through which the three jewels (of the Buddha, Dharma
and Sangha) as "result" are manifested. As kiyota says that the wisdom, merits
and practice of a Bodhisattva constitute the condition through which the
"Buddha-is-caused". The expression "Buddha-is-caused", or
"Buddha-caused" is derived from 'Buddha-dhatu'. It is employed synonymously with
the 'tathagatagarbha'. As Kiyota rightly points out, the term "cause" here does
not refer to a first cause (i.e., a substance or a physical entity), but symbolically as a
potential (a principle) which is empirically revealed through a set of
conditions˘wwisdom, merits ,and practices.(23) In other words, the 'tathagatagarbha' as a
potential inherent in the human consciousness can only be realized through Bodhisattva
practices.

The above arguments are mainly based on the
Rathagotravibhaga. At least two other 'Tatnagatagarbha' related 'sutras' also support this
viewpoint. One is the Buddha Nature Treatise (24) and the other, the 'Mahaparinirvana
sutra'(25).

In the Buddha Nature Treatise, the author gives five
reasons to the question why the Buddha spoke of Buddha nature. They are:

1) to cause sentient beings to depart from inferior mind,
2) to leave behind arrogance,
3) to get rid of delusion,
4) to keep away from slandering the truth and
5) to sever the attachment to self (26).

By overcoming these five shortcomings, one gives rise to
five virtues, namely , diligent mind, reverence, widom ('prajna') knowledge ('jnana') and
compassion ('karuna'). Clearly, right from the beginning, the author does not try to
establish that the Buddha nature stands for something substantial. Rather, he points out
the soteriological function of the teaching of the Buddha nature.

Delusion refers to the two erronous views of the
substential existence of both person ('atman') and things (dharma). Ignorant actions arise
from these two attachments to the self and external things which prevent human beings from
perceiving the truth. To the author of the Buddha Nature Treatise, the truth is nothing
but the Buddha nature, for "Buddha nature is the Thusness revealed by the twin
emptiness of person and things."(27) Thus it is said that "if one does not speak
of Buddha nature, then one does not understand emptiness and consequently will cling to
reality and slander Thusness."(28) Since the Buddha nature is the implementation of
emptiness, it can be any thing but an entity.

Furthermore, in the chapter of expounding the nature of
Buddha nature, the author identified Buddha nature with the 'Dharmakaya', which is
characterized with four virtues ('guna'). One of them is "self" ('atman'). This
"self" is immediately identified with the perfection of non-self
('anatman-paramita'). How can the self be at the same time the perfection of non-self? The
author explains:

- All the heterodox, in their various ways, conceive and
grasp a self in those things which lack self, namely, the five skandhas˘wform, etc. Yet
these things such as form, etc. differ from what one grasps as the mark of selfˇF
therefore, they are eternally lacking in self [However] with the wisdom of Thusness (chen
ju chih). all Buddhas and bodhisattvas realize the perfection of non-self
('anatman-paramita') of all things Since this perfection of non-self and that which is
seen as the mark of not-self are not different, the 'Tathagata' says that this mark of the
eternal not-self is the true, essential nature (chen t'i hsing) of all things, therefore.
it is said that the perfection of not-self is self. As the 'sutra' verse says,

Already the twin emptiness [of person and thing] is pure.
[In this] is realized the not-self, the supreme self, Since the Buddha realizes the pure
nature (hsing). Not-self turns on itself (chuan) and becomes self.(29)

It is evident from this explanation that the teaching of
Buddha nature is the instrument employed along with 'prajna' to realize the true,
essential nature of all dharmas, namely, the non-self. Soteriologically speaking,
'tathagatagarbha/Buddha' nature also functions as an active skillful means, for it is
reiterated in several 'tathagatagarbha' texts that 'tathagatagarbha' is the basis of
'samsara' and 'nirvana'. That is to say without 'tathagatagarbha/Buddha' nature, sentient
beings would neither arouse aversion to 'samsara' nor desire for 'nirvana'. Therefore,
'tathagatagarbha' is active, not static. In other words, it represents actions of
practice, rather than an monastic substance.

This interpretation can be further attested by the three
causes of the Buddha nature explained in the Buddha Nature Treatise. The Buddha nature
consists of three causes:

1) "deserved" cause,
2) the cause of intensified effort, and
3) the casue of fulfillment.(30)

The three-cause schema signifies that depending on the
"Thusness manifested by the twin emptiness (i.e., Buddha nature)"; and through
the intensified effort of Buddhist practices, one "should obtain" or
"deserves" the fulfillment of Buddhahood. Apparently , the pivot of the triple
cause is the cause of intensified practice, for it plays the role of activating the
potentiality to realize the Buddha nature.

As we know, the 'Mahaparnirvana-sutra' is one of the most
important 'sutras' which articulate the concept of Buddha nature. Just as the
Ratnagotravibhaga claims that all sentient beings possess the 'tathagatagarbha', so the
'Mahaparinirvana Sutra' teaches that sentient beings have the Buddha nature. In explaining
what it means by sentient beings' having the Buddha nature, the 'Mahaparinirvana Sutra'
distinguishes three different ways of understanding the term "to have":

- Good son, there are three ways of having: first, to have
in the future, Secondly, to have at present, and thirdly, to have in the past. All
sentient beings will have in future ages the most perfect enlightenment, i.e., the Buddha
nature. All sentient beings have at present bonds of defilements, and do not now possess
the thirty-two marks and eighty noble characteristics of the Buddha. All sentient beings
had in past ages deeds leading to the elimination of defilements and so can now perceive
the Buddha nature as their future goal. For such reasons, I always proclaim that all
sentient beings have the Buddha nature.(31)

Since the above passage identifies sentient beings' ways
of having Buddha nature with the third way of having, i.e., having in the future, it is
again a proof that the teaching of the universal Buddha nature does not intend to assert
the existence of substantial, entity-like self endowed with excellent features of a
Buddha. Rather, Buddha nature simply represents the potentiality to be realized in the
future.

Elsewhere in the 'Mahaparinirana Sutra', Buddha nature is
defined as the ultimate emptiness and the Middle Way. It says:

- Good son, Buddha nature is the ultimate emptiness ,which
is 'prajna' itself. [False] emptiness means not to perceive emptiness or non-emptiness.
The wise perceive emptiness and non-emptiness, permanence and impermanence, suffering and
happiness, self and non-self. What is empty is 'samsara' and what is not empty is great
'nirvana' ... Perceiving the non-self but not the self is not the Middle Way. The Middle
Way is Buddha nature.(32)

The essential point of this passage is that true
emptiness, or in this case Buddha nature, trancends any dictomony˘wbeing and non-being,
self and non-self, suffering and happiness, etc. Ordinary people and the heterodox see
only the existence of self, while 'Sravakas' and Pratyekabuddhas perceive only the
non-self, but not the existence of a self. Clinging to one extreme or the other, they
cannot realize the ultimate, and true emptiness and consequently cannot realize the Middle
Way. Without the Middle Way, they are not able to comprehend Buddha nature. Trying to
lessen the monistic flavour of the Buddha nature, the 'Mahaparinirvana Sutra' interprets
Buddha nature as both emcompassing and transcending the notions of self and non-self. It
makes the doctrine of the Buddha nature adhere closely to the Buddhist teaching of
non-duality and the Middle Way. Thus Buddha nature should not be treated as equivalent to
the monistic absolute. If it does seemly indicate the presence of a substantive self, it
is actually a positive expression of emptiness.

In conclusion, when we try to interpret the thought of the
'tathagatagarbha', we should keep several points in mind:

1) The 'tathagatagarbha' symbolizes the potential for
enlightenment (a principle) rather than a material "essence" of ultimate truth,

2) the 'tathagatagarbha' is based on the framework of the
'Mahayana' doctrine of 'sunyata-pratitys-amutpada'.

3) The development of the 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine
signifies the ability of a religious tradition to meet the spiritual needs of the masses
aiming at a given time.

That is to say the 'tathagatagarbha' thought was formed as
an positive soterio-logical approach to counteract the "'sunyam sarvam'" (all is
empty) view. The 'tathagatagarbha' which strongly articulates a devotional and
experiential approach to salvation provides much to the hope and aspiration of the people
at large. It is this positive aspect that was taken up and strongly emphasized in Chinese
Buddhism.

4) The 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine is employed as a
skill-in-means ('upaya'). This does not necessarily mean that the theory of the
'tathagatagarbha' is neyartha, a teaching requiring further qualifications -- rather, it
is a skill-in-means in that it is taught to suit the needs of a certain kind of people and
circumstances. This is why it is said in the 'sutra' that in order to teach the emptiness
of all dharmas, the Buddhas preach sometimes by the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha', and
sometimes by that of emptiness. Thus it is better to take the 'tathagatagarbha / Buddha
nature' as representing "profound existence" derived from "true
emptiness" rather than as a monistic self./.

(6). There is no evidence that the 'Tathagatagarbha'
formed a school in India. For one thing there never existed a patriarchal figure in the
'tathagatagarbha' as 'Nagarjuna' in 'Madhyamika' and 'Asanga' in 'Yogacara'. However,
Fa-tsang identified a "ju-lai-tsang yuan-chi tsang", i.e". "a school
of 'Tathagatagarbha-pratityasamut-pada'". Furthermore , Takasaki identifies
'Tathagatagarbha-vada' in the 'Lankavatara-sutra' and claims it is used as an independent
school in contrast to 'Atmavada'. For further discussion on this issue, see M. Kiyota,
"'Tathagatagarbha' Thought -- A Basis of Buddhist Devotionalism in East Asia,"
Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 12, no. 2-3, pp. 207-229.

(7). Leningrad Obermiller, "The Sublime School of the
Great Vehicle to Salvation, Being a Manual of Buddhist Monism," Acta Orientalia, Vol.
IX, p. 104.

(18). John Makransky, "Rgyal Tshab Rje's
Interpretation of the Three Meanings of 'Tathagatagarbha' with Reference to the
'Tathagatagarbhasutra', the Ratnagotravibhaga and some Philosophical and Historical
Developments," unpub. paper.

(24). Traditionally, Fo Hsing Lun (The Buddha Nature
Treatise) is attributed to Vasubandha and translated into Chinese by 'Paramartha'. Some
Buddhologists, for example, Takasaki, suspect that it was actually written by
'Paramartha'. However, this is still an unresolved issue. At any rate, this text
represents the Yogacarin view concerning the Buddha nature.

(25). This is the 'Mahayana' version of the Buddha's
'Parinirvana'. Its content concentrates mainly on the 'Mahayana' doctrines such as the
eternal nature of Buddhahood rather than on the description of the last days of the
Buddha.